This is a work that, for me, gets off to a bad start almost from the first page.
It irks me to no end that a book dealing with a serious scientific topic does not give a single scientific name for any of the birds mentioned, not even a list at the end of the book. It is inexcusable on its face, but becomes even more egregious when one considers that people whose native tongue is not English may wish to use the book as a reference, and may not know the common name in English (not always the same from book to book, by the way) but would identify the bird in an instant if the scientific name were given. Why it is not given mystifies me.
Furthermore, I am at a bit of a loss to understand why the author does not follow the widely accepted practice of capitalizing the common names of birds. Almost universal in its use, it eliminates any possible confusion. Is one talking about a little egret (could be a small Great Egret) or a Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), a great blue heron (maybe an exceptionally-plumaged Little Blue Heron) or a Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)? A blue tit perhaps conveys a different meaning from Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)! And how about that lovely cotinga I saw in Costa Rica - or was it a Lovely Cotinga (Cotinga amabilis)?
Let me point to distinguished ornithologists recently published by Princeton University Press who all subscribe to capitalization: Klaus Malling Olsen, Pete Dunne and Kevin T. Karlson, Brian K. Wheeler, William S. Clark and N. John Schmitt, Tomasz Cofta, Steve N. G. Howell and Kirk Zufelt....and others. And, without exception they provide scientific names too! The American Ornithological Society uses capitalization, as does the Cornell Lab of Ornithology! Why not you, Wenfei Tong?
The type size for the descriptive paragraphs accompanying the pictures is really small, and if there is even a little glare on the glossy paper, it is hard to read.
I take issue with facts and/or sloppy treatment throughout the book. Permit me to cite a few examples.
Page 55 - "Black-billed magpie pairs in Europe form evenly spaced territories.....". Black-billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia) is exclusively a bird of western North America. The similar-looking European bird is is a different species, Eurasian Magpie (Pica pica). This taxonomic split is of long standing, and to make sure that it has been universally accepted, I checked the following authorities: IOC World Bird Names (Version 11.1), Clements 6th edition (Version 2019), Howard & Moore (4th edition), eBird (2019), HBW and BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist v. 5 (Dec. 2020). In each case the treatment is the same - two distinct species. And to make the cheese a little more binding on page 166 Tong actually uses the term Eurasian magpie!
Blue Tit is a delightful little bird in the family Parulidae, found throughout Britain, most of Europe, and western Asia. It does not, however, have a crest as stated in the text. I have checked every reference I have (and I have seen hundreds of Blue Tits) and the bird is always credited with having a blue cap or crown. I was unable to find any reference to erectile feathers creating the semblance of a crest during courtship or hostility. If you wish to see a tit with a crest see Crested Tit (Parus cristatus), Rufous-naped Tit (Parus rufonuchalis), Sultan Tit (Melanochlora sultanea) or others. Blue Tit does not have a crest as stated on page 72 dealing with territorial defence.
On page 109, when dealing with Northern Flicker, it is stated "A female red-shafted flicker (the western US variant of the northern flicker.....". The bird occupies western North America, including Canada, not just the US, and as if to prove the point the main part of the text says, "Similarly, up to 5 percent of female northern flickers in a population in British Columbia....". Conflicting statements on the same page!
I was more than a little puzzled to read on page 174 that "Squabbling and siblicide are common among eastern screech owl chicks......". That did not align with my experience with these diminutive owls. I have an entire shelf of reference works on owls, and was unable to find evidence of this behaviour in the literature. In Wilson Bulletin 110 (1), 1998, page 91, it is stated "Finally it is possible that siblicidal behaviour is simply uncommon in Eastern Screech Owls and that starvation and suffocation are the primary causes of mortality among nestlings." Noteworthy, I think, is the fact that this august journal capitalizes the names of birds throughout!
The bibliography, interestingly called a "Selective Bibliography" is nothing short of abysmal. For a work that devotes 215 pages to "Understanding Bird Behaviour" only six titles are offered to the reader interested in further study, and three of them are by Nick Davies, a distinguished behavioural ecologist without question, but there are many others. What about his good friend Tim Birkhead, to name just one? This list could have been, and should have been, considerably extended. Just dealing with crows for example (putting other corvids aside for a moment), they are focus of the text on pages 45-6, 50, 55, 57, 139, 140-1, 143, 182, 187, 195. Yet there is not a single reference to direct the reader to further reading from legendary figures such as Berndt Heinrich, John Marzluff and Tony Angell.
Ravens take up pages 50, 52-3 and 74. A link to Derek Ratcliffe's magnificent monograph would seem to be in order. And, the aforementioned Heinrich's work with Common Ravens should be required reading for anyone even mildly interested in these intelligent, resourceful birds.
I could cite more, trust me, but you get the point.
The list of journal articles is impressive, but few readers have access to most of these highly specialized journals, not always available on line, and often requiring paid membership in an organization. How many among us regularly see Animal Behaviour, Journal of Experimental Biology or the Proceedings of the Royal Society?
The book would have benefitted greatly from a glossary.
I reviewed Wenfei Tong's previous book, Bird Love, in March 2020 (here) and the issues were the same then. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, unfortunately.
In Ben Shelton's foreword, he comments on "Wenfei Tong's lively prose." I have yet to find it. Adequate? Certainly. Lively? I think not. In fact I found some of the sentences a little cumbersome and had to reread them to make sure I understood what she was trying to convey.
On the positive side, the photographs range from good to very good, and usually illustrate the chapter well. I was not particularly impressed with the paintings, but I realize that may simply reflect personal taste. There is much that a beginner seeking to learn about bird behaviour can learn from the book, but it is a bit of a spare skeleton, perhaps inevitable when only two pages for each topic are allowed including pictures, maps, and illustrations that take up much of the space. A work based on sound reasoning has fallen apart a little, unfortunately.
Do I recommend it? Should you buy it? My advice would be to get a nice bottle of wine. You will probably get more satisfaction from it - and it will certainly not irritate you as much as this book has irritated me!
Understanding Bird Behaviour - Princeton University Press
Author: Wenfei Tong - Hardcover - ISBN: 9780691206004
Price: US$27.95
Published: 20 September 2020
224 pages - 150 colour illustrations and photographs - 6.5 x 9 inches (16.25 x 22.5 cm)
Querido David me queda claro que no me tengo que comprar este libro, parece ser que es como si lo escribiera yo que no tengo ni idea. En el comentario del Herrerillo creo que quizás hable del Herrillo capuchino(lophophanes cristatus) que aquí veo en el bosque. Muchas gracias por tu claridad y por darnos siempre una magnífica información. Un fuerte abrazo para ti y para Míriam. Besos.
ReplyDeleteOh David, this must be a lousy book! I have never seen you write like that about a book before.
ReplyDeleteA bottle of wine sounds like a very good idea! :)
I take it that you disapprove, David. It seems to me that there's a need for two sorts of books about birds: those aimed at those with a deep interest in birds; and those aimed to entertain and enlighten the general reader who wishes to learn more. From what you say this book seems to satisfy neither camp. I'll keep a look out for those crested Blue Tits! Thank goodness there was no mention of Brown Boobies.
ReplyDeleteThis is dearly aimed at those with a serious interest, John, but it fails miserably. Now if you need any help searching for brown boobies, oops Brown Boobies, be sure to let me know.
DeleteThat should say "clearly aimed at" not "dearly aimed at".
DeleteSorry you don't like the book and have found so many fatal mistakes in it. You have always praised the books you have reviewed up til now. Pity this one is so bad. Hugs, Valerie
ReplyDeletein a way, Valerie, it grieves me to do it, but it's an honest response to the book.
DeleteThis sounds like the sort pf book that should be withdrawn from publication for sheer incompetence.
ReplyDeleteHari OM
ReplyDeleteHaving had to review a book in my own field recently it was impossible to do so without thinking in terms of peership, as opposed to general readership. That said, it too kind of failed on the latter count as there was so much of technical medical in it that it was neither a good medical text nor a particularly handy home reference (which it claimed to be)... my point is - well done for bringing out the honest strap and making clear where improvement is required. What gets me is, this one at least had been 'reviewed and foreworded' by someone who, it may have been thought, would know better!!! YAM xx
I am sorry that you went through this torture. Thank you for the warning.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is disappointing. Such an important subject certainly deserved better treatment.
ReplyDeleteBird lovers won't like this book and most likely won't purchase it.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound like the best bird book to pass along. That's really too bad. It's rough when you spend your time reading a book and it's so disappointing.
ReplyDeleteIl y'a tellement de livres que les oiseaux que l'on peut sans doute laisser celui ci de côté. Bonne journée
ReplyDeleteBonne décision!
DeleteReally, hard to believe that a book is written and not used their scientific names, that's just not on - similar to a plant book without it's correct names not written, certainly wouldn't buy one of those.
ReplyDeleteHi David - oh dear ... this must irritate you so much. It saves me worrying - not another book to think about. I feel for you - Hilary
ReplyDeleteAlthough your knowledge on the subject matter is far superior to my own, David, from your review, that book would wind me up just as much as it did your good self. Thank you for the warning!
ReplyDeletePues es una pena querido amigo, el trabajo que lleva un libro y cómo es posible que se escatime en esfuerzos y en temas tan concretos como bien has explicado. Realmente es para estar decepcionado.
ReplyDeleteRecibe un fuerte abrazo de tu amigo y compadre Juan y os deseo un espléndido mes de julio.
I saw on the news that it is very hot in Canada
ReplyDeleteUn libro que no te aporta nada, ya que tienes un buen conocimiento de las distintas aves. Su nombre y sus costumbres, lo tiene muy bien estudiado y además una buena práctica, con la observación que obtiene en los distintos avistamientos de ellas.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the warning, it will not be a book I will be reading.
ReplyDeleteHave a great day!
What a shame. It's a subject that could be made so interesting, but that would be too distracting for me to wade through.
ReplyDeleteSeems a bit unusual for Princeton Press that a better editing job wasn't performed.
Princeton is usually (and consistently) superb. I don't know whether the issue is this author, or a particular editorial team, but this is the second book of hers that wallows in mediocrity and sloppiness.
DeleteBrilliant cover!
ReplyDeletePS The dry grass is put in shelters, so that it does not rain on it
This is really quite a detailed review, David, from someone (yourself) who knows so much about the topic and has such a vast knowledge from reading and critiquing other works. I did like the cover photo and without even a thought to buying the book would definitely get a bottle of wine instead.
ReplyDeleteGood choice, Beatrice!
DeleteI guess we need a few bad books around so we can really appreciate the good ones, but I would rather have that wine than a bad book :)
ReplyDeleteIf ever I make it to New Zealand we'll drink a glass together!
DeleteHello good evening dear professor how'r u!
ReplyDeleteSo this book is written in a bit of a hasty or informal way,
i understand... maybe like i write in English jajaa. 🙂
Have a quiet nice & have a delicious glass of wine with your wife 🍷 🍷
We sometimes buy another nice Malbec called La Linda. I think they named it for you!
DeleteThis had to be a terrible book to irritate you so!
ReplyDeleteWhich is worse - a bottle of bad wine or a bad book?!!
Happy Thursday; linked from Rains Thursday Art Date
ReplyDeleteMuch❤love
Very nice post and review. The wine sounds good. LOL Have a great day.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for sharing
ReplyDeleteMe encantó el post, gracias por compartirlo. Besos
ReplyDeleteBad book content and it's good that you write it.
ReplyDeleteIt's good that a bird lover like you knows all of this.
I wish you a nice day, Elke
It sounds like a book that fails miserably. Thank you for the warning,David.
ReplyDeleteHi David! Oh I loved your review, especially recommending the bottle of wine instead of the book lol...that was great. It's a shame that people take such time and cost to actually publish a book then riddle the whole things with irritating style and error!
ReplyDeleteMe parece muy bien que digas lo que piensas de ese libro. Me parece mal que no pongan su nombre científico, nombre común seguro que tienen muchos, no en todos los países se les llama igual. Besos.
ReplyDeleteAh, ven para España que yo tengo buenos vinos.
¡Quizás ulgún día. Teresa! xo
Deletealgún, no ulgún.....
DeleteI am sorry that this book irritated you but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAll the best Jan
Tak! To na pewno cenna pozycja! Ja coś nie potrafię zrozumieć ptaków, kiedy uciekają sprzed obiektywu. :-)
ReplyDelete